“America First” for Who, Exactly?
When a slogan refuses to answer the class question, it becomes a lie
Every country has the right to put its own people first. Americans saying Americans first is not strange. China putting China first is not strange. Canada putting Canada first is also reasonable. The basic purpose of a nation is to protect the safety, livelihood, and dignity of its people.
Now, as your Chinese Commissar, I have to help you, especially Americans, figure this out before you throw yourselves into extreme nationalism.
The problem is not whether a country comes first.
The problem is that when people shout “America First,” they almost never answer a simpler and more dangerous question.
First for who?
For oligarchs?
For politicians?
For the war machine?
For corporate interests?
For overseas priorities and foreign commitments, including Israel?
Or for ordinary people who live on wages?
These are not the same thing. Blurring them together is how exploitation gets wrapped in patriotic language.
Why the slogan stays vague on purpose
The real political value of “America First” is not that it is radical. It is that it is empty.
Empty enough for anyone to pour their own interests into it.
Defense industries can interpret it as security first.
Financial capital can interpret it as markets first.
Corporate monopolies can interpret it as profits first.
Politicians can interpret it as power first.
And when it comes to foreign policy, certain overseas commitments are treated as untouchable, defended with urgency and moral certainty, while domestic needs are endlessly debated, delayed, or dismissed as unrealistic.
Ordinary people hear dignity and sovereignty. Elites hear budgets and leverage. Both think they are supporting the same idea. They are not.
This is not a misunderstanding. It is design.
Vagueness is a political technique. It gathers emotion while avoiding responsibility. The moment you ask who benefits and who pays, the slogan collapses.
A country that avoids class will always put workers last
Who actually makes up a country?
Not donors. Not lobbyists. Not media figures who never face bankruptcy. Not career politicians who remember factories only during election seasons.
The real structure of a nation is built on people who live on wages. People who work shifts. People whose lives are measured by monthly bills.
If these people are underpaid, crushed by rent, hunted by medical debt, and locked into lifelong loans, the country is not strong. It only looks strong.
The logic is simple:
Only when the working class comes first can a country truly come first.
If oligarchs come first, that is not America First. That is oligarch first, wrapped in a flag.
When “national priority” turns into “war priority”
There is a well-developed escape mechanism in U.S. politics.
When domestic problems cannot be solved, attention is redirected outward. When class conflict cannot be confronted, it is buried under security narratives. When living costs rise, leaders invoke national emergencies and foreign threats.
War messaging is often sold as national interest not because it works, but because it is useful.
War creates urgency.
Urgency expands power.
Expanded power suppresses internal dissent.
This is where foreign policy priorities matter.
If the government can always find money, weapons, and political unity for wars and overseas allies, but claims paralysis when asked to fund healthcare, housing, or wages at home, then “America First” is not a governing principle. It is a branding exercise.
Israel is a clear example of this pattern. Not as an identity issue, but as a budget and power issue. Certain commitments are treated as automatic, beyond debate, while the needs of American workers are framed as optional, expensive, or irresponsible.
That contrast tells you exactly how national priorities are set.
Turn slogans into checklists, or admit they are marketing
If a political slogan cannot be tested, it is just emotional branding.
A real version of “America First” must answer concrete questions:
Do wages outpace rent and inflation?
Does healthcare stop bankrupting people?
Do unions have real power over pay and hours?
Are monopolies broken up instead of protected?
Does public spending prioritize working families before endless war and overseas commitments?
If these questions have no answers, then “America First” is just an identity label. It sounds tough, but it changes nothing.
Class does not appear because people talk about it
Some argue that talking about class divides the country.
This is one of the most dishonest arguments in politics.
Class is not created by language. It already exists through income structures, ownership, and power distribution. Refusing to talk about it does not erase it. It only allows those at the top to remain invisible.
What truly divides a country is letting most people fall behind, then encouraging them to fight over culture, identity, and symbols instead of following the money.
One final question you have to answer yourself
You can keep using the phrase “America First.” No one is stopping you.
But if you refuse to say working class first, then what you value is the emotion of the slogan, not its real meaning.
Real national priority is not flag-waving. It is pulling ordinary people out from under debt, monopoly power, and permanent war costs.
If a country is going to come first, then workers and ordinary families must come first. Otherwise, that “first” will never belong to them.
Please allow me to share my perspective along this line of thought.
The Rich (extremely or moderately) can say that their wealth does not stay idle. The invest and develop to keep the economy going and add value to the goods and services that we all receive. They let money make more money and the rest of the people make get the "trickle down" benefit. There are people make money in trading in the market that may not add much value to the goods and services. Be that as it may, they may motivate investors to make money.
When you follow the value, the essential elements that add value to supply and services boil down to labour, equipment and materials. However, without "Labour", equipment and material would not add value to goods and services. Basically, there will be no productivity without the labour component....the working class. It's as simple as that.
"Labour" in a general sense includes management, supervisors as well the front line workers. . This is part of the system and part of the structure.
To me, that is the working class and is the critical component that adds value to a nation's productivity. They should be treated accordingly.
I'm glad I found substack. Been trying to find your page. I understand and for a few years frustrated getting the word out. Trying to get others to act. Planning for the worst hoping humanity prevails. Pedophile Nazis run America right now